chapter 1 overview of the study - repository.up.ac.za

Chapter 1 Overview of the study

1


1.1 Introduction

"A pause in the wrong place, an intonation misunderstood, and a

whole conversation went awry."

(From: Passage to India by EM Forster 1924:269)

In conversations with others, misunderstandings often arise for various reasons. To avoid

misunderstandings and achieve successful communication, speakers and hearers need to

achieve some form of mutual understanding. This effort to achieve mutual understanding in

communication can, however, go "awry" (Foster 1924:269) and may cause

misunderstanding. The misunderstanding may provide amusement, but often causes

embarrassment. In an instructional context, however, such misunderstandings may lead to

a breakdown in communication and may have a negative impact on the learning

experience. Commonly, language is described as the means by which a person learns to

organize experiences and thoughts. It stands at the centre of the many cognitive, affective

and social factors that shape learning (Thomas & Collier 2002). One of the most important

uses of language, therefore, also in an instructional setting, is for the purposes of

successful communication between people, be they native or non-native speakers of the

language (Dascal 1999).

The notion of misunderstanding has been described using socio-linguistic terms, among

others, miscommunication, misinterpretation, pragmatic failure or breakdown in

communication (Dascal 1999:753). Although one cannot possibly know how often

misunderstandings occur in everyday conversation, Dascal (1999:754) states that it is

"assumed that misunderstandings are ubiquitous". Hinnenkamp (1999:9) agrees by stating

that "my own research rather supports the view that misunderstandings are all-pervasive

and ubiquitous, in all kind of encounters". This is something we can all agree on as we

continuously experience misunderstandings in our everyday lives. It would seem, however,

as if native speakers of English are able to repair misunderstandings rather quickly, often

within the next turn. In view of this ability for quick repair, some researchers have come to


2

believe that misunderstandings should not be considered a problem, or something to be

fixed, but rather that it should be considered a natural part of communication (Hinnenkamp

2003; 1999; Wong 2000; Dascal 1999). Misunderstandings occur daily, and while these

misunderstandings are not necessarily always due to second language (L2) phenomena,

such as grammatical inadequacy or cross-cultural transfer, it is evident that second

language speakers at times experience difficulties in expressing their thoughts in the target

language, which may ultimately result in misunderstanding.

The study of misunderstanding falls within the domain of intercultural communication (ICC).

Hinnenkamp (1999:1) states that misunderstanding has become the "raison -d'etre" for

studying ICC because the communication involving the misunderstanding is often between

"cultural others". A great body of knowledge on theory and analysis of miscommunications

and misunderstandings exists in the literature, mainly perhaps, owing to linguists' interest

in ambiguity in language (Hinnenkamp 2003; Wong 2000; Dascal 1999; Weigand 1999;

Weizman 1999; Schegloff 1992). This research deals with, among others, defining the term

"misunderstanding", and classifying and analysing misunderstandings. However, research

interest seems to have excluded the actual misunderstandings that cause

miscommunication. Misunderstandings in the literature are generally classified according to

structural rather than content factors, such as where the misunderstandings occur in the

turn-taking (Wong 2000; Schegloff 1992). There seem to be few classifications that

categorise what is actually occurring when misunderstandings take place, and fewer still

explain the reasons for the occurrence of misunderstandings in an instructional context,

which this study aims to address. The type of misunderstanding and the possible reasons

for such misunderstandings could shed light on problematic instructional communication.

This study is, therefore, an investigation into the occurrence, type, frequency and causes of

misunderstanding in the instructional setting.

1.2 Rationale

As a lecturer at a large, research intensive, urban institution of higher education in South

Africa, my responsibilities include the professional development of pre-service teachers

through teaching practice. During teaching practice sessions second, third and fourth (final)


3

year pre-service students are placed at local schools to gain authentic teaching

experience. While second and third year students do teaching practice sessions for three

weeks per year, final year students are placed at schools for an internship period of

approximately six months. During the internship period, student teachers' progress and

classroom performance are assessed by mentor teachers and lecturers. During my many

years of observational field visits I have become aware that students, in particular those

who are speakers of English as a second language, struggle to perform well orally when

teaching content. The principles of the communicative approach to language teaching are

taught in my courses, as well as formal, academic English1, or as Cummins (2009:4) puts

it: "cognitively demanding language". The students are encouraged to apply this knowledge

in their language use, however, my perceptions have been that their ability to use English

remains problematic. Students' grammatical errors have become fossilised, especially

those of concord, past participle application, spelling and general grammar. When

presenting oral work, not only do pronunciation, enunciation and accent interfere with their

successful communication, but grammatical errors abound. In an informal conversation, a

colleague referred to the English spoken by some of these students as "scary English".

Furthermore, where student teachers teach subjects other than English, content delivery

and facilitation of learning become problematic because English is the language of learning

and teaching (LoLT) in many schools in South Africa. The student teachers' oral proficiency

in English seems to be inadequate as English is not their mother tongue.

Anecdotal evidence gleaned during my years as mentor lecturer suggests several factors

that possibly influence speakers' acquisition of the target language (in this case English as

a second language). A factor that could be influential is the inability to realise speech acts

correctly in the target language, due to, among others, cross-cultural transfer problems.

The following are authentic examples of utterances, or speech acts, produced by student

teachers in instructional settings during my school visits:

"I cannot do nothing for you." (incorrect double negative)

"Come by, come by!" (meaning "Pay attention" or "Wake up")

"Come again, Joseph?" (meaning "Please repeat, or "I didn't hear/understand")

1 Reading widely, thinking critically and writing literary-based critical analyses using formal register.


4

"Do you get me?" (meaning "Do you understand me?")

"Do you have a problem?" (meaning "Is there something you don't understand?", but

interpreted as a threat)

"Please, I was asking for the homework." (incorrect tense)

"She said I was absent but I refused." (incorrect word choice)

"I very glad." (no finite verb)

What is worrying is that it is precisely these students who, in some cases, become English

teachers and who will be responsible for the learners' successful acquisition of the target

language, or who will have to deliver subject content in their second language. Yet they

themselves have not sufficiently mastered the target language and the cycle of problematic

language use in the classrooms is perpetuated.

Of greater concern is the implied tension between the reality in the instructional setting and

government policy, since policy demands that it is the language teacher's responsibility to

ensure that the LoLT does not become a barrier to learning (Evans & Cleghorn 2010;

Department of Education 2003).

Inadequate language proficiency may complicate the learning process and cause

"instructional dissonance" (Evans 2005). Utterances such as the aforementioned made me

aware that student teachers' realization patterns of speech acts may be problematic. One

cannot merely assume that student teachers' oral proficiency or communicative (pragmatic)

competence in their second language is adequate. The student teachers' ungrammaticaI

and non-standard realization patterns could lead to misunderstanding, cause dissonance,

create barriers to learning or may negatively affect the learning process.

Speakers of a second language may be unfamiliar with idiomatic or technical English;

contractions; prepositions; pronunciation; complex language; jargon and/or acronyms; or

they may not be used to hearing English, thus using it incorrectly themselves. Speed of

delivery, intonation, rhythm and syllabic stress, to name a few, become problematic. How

the student teacher, as such a speaker of a second language, uses the target language

may very well exacerbate the problem. In my opinion, teaching relies very heavily on


5

effective communication and if that communication is distorted, misunderstandings may

occur.

I was, therefore, interested in studying the misunderstandings occurring during instruction

as my proposition was that the misunderstandings might be caused by the oral proficiency

of student teachers. I decided to include only spoken proficiency, since this mode is

principally used in an instructional setting. Where student teachers are orally proficient,

instances of instructional dissonance may be fewer. In order to gain understanding of

successful communication in the instructional setting, I chose to trace misunderstandings

that occurred among non-native speakers of English student teachers and their learners.

The main research question informing the study was:

To what extent are misunderstandings the result of English second language

student teachers’ oral proficiency?

In an attempt to answer this question, I was guided by the following sub-questions:

• How/when do misunderstandings occur?

• What level of student teacher oral proficiency is required to ensure learner

understanding?

• What strategies do student teachers employ to compensate for

distorted/ambiguous communication?

The extent to which the above research questions were answered by the study, is

explained in chapter 4 and 5.

1.3 Scope of the study

The study spanned the period 2008–2011 and focused on misunderstandings that

occurred during instruction. The study was conducted in three phases, namely a pilot study

in 2009 (April to October) and a data collection period in 2010 (April to October) and one in

2011 (April to June), which included 26 student teacher participants in total. Since the

study was limited in scope it implies that certain choices had to be made regarding what to

include. As such, while one includes some aspects, one necessarily excludes others. For


6

example, only those student teachers teaching English as a subject or teaching through the

medium of English (LoLT) were included. All student teachers included in the study were

thus non-native speakers of English, with home languages such as Afrikaans, Sepedi and

isiZulu. Furthermore, only final year student teachers were included so as to capitalize on

their extended internship period in schools. Gender and age of student teachers were not

considered as these variables were not deemed important in the outcome or the findings of

the study. Regarding the research sites for this study, I included those schools where the

participants taught English as a subject or where the LoLT was English. I did not include a

specific type of school in terms of socio-economic background or size as these variables

were considered irrelevant in the outcome of the study. I did not include the learners and

their use of language as I was interested in the language usage of the student teachers I

have come to know.

Since the focus was on misunderstandings possibly caused by final year student teachers'

inadequate oral proficiency, or inability to realise speech acts, the literature review was

limited to the domain of communicative competence. Communicative competence includes

second language acquisition and speech acts. Theory on instructional communication and

misunderstandings was also included.

Language development and language proficiency is a multi-faceted aspect and it was not

possible to investigate all relevant aspects in this study. I narrowed my focus to include

cross-linguistic factors, although I referred to cross-cultural influences as they materialized

in the study. I also narrowed the focus to include linguistic literacy but not academic

literacy, although I acknowledge that both may have a causal role in the manifestation of

misunderstandings. In this study I excluded research on processes of language acquisition

which happen outside of formal contexts of language teaching or where the target

language is taught explicitly, as I was concerned only with the instructional context where

the second language is used as LoLT.

1.4 Terminology

The following terms are considered key to the interpretation of this study and


7

are defined as they are used in this study:

• Communicative competence: pragmatic competence which implies knowledge of

linguistic norms, such as grammar, as well as social norms (Sage 2003; Hymes 1967);

appropriate use of target language in a social and cultural context (Tanck 2002);

knowing how to use and respond to different types of speech acts such as requests and

apologies; capability, proficiency (in this study pertaining to the English language) in

applying grammatically correct sentences

• Cross-cultural transfer: a second language (L2) English speaker’s transfer of his/her

L1 cultural norms to L2 linguistic use; leads to pragmatic failure, or cross-cultural

communication breakdown (Thomas 1983)

• Dissonance: traditionally a musical term meaning discord or disharmony; where I refer

to dissonance in this study it refers to disharmony experienced in the learning and

teaching process, caused by barriers, such as misunderstandings

• Instructional communication: communication that is initiated by the teacher; the

communication skills necessary to teach and facilitate learning and to function

competently in the classroom (Simonds 2001); communicative skills, including oral

proficiency, required for interaction with learners, verbally and non-verbally, in a face-to-

face learning environment (McCroskey, Valencic & Richmond 2004)

• Language of learning and teaching (LoLT): language medium in which learning and

teaching, including assessment, takes place; in this study the LoLT is English

• Literacy: traditionally considered the ability to read and write; the ability to use

language proficiently, but including literacies, i.e. other forms of literacy, such as visual

literacy, financial literacy, computer literacy; where I refer to illiteracy in the study, it

implies the traditional meaning, the inability to read and write or use one's first language

proficiently

• Misunderstanding: the inability to understand or interpret an utterance

correctly/appropriately; a failure to interpret speaker intent (function) of an utterance;

also includes mispronouncing, mishearing

• Non-understanding: a failure to understand the message of the speaker (which differs

from misunderstanding); in this study non-understanding results due to inadequate

preparation or inadequate content knowledge


8

• Oral proficiency: ability, aptitude, competence in speaking a language; fluency

(speaking naturally and normally, using rhythm, intonation, stress and rate of speech

appropriately); accuracy (speaking naturally and normally, native-like, using grammar

and vocabulary correctly)

• Pragmatics: the study of the use of language in communication; branch of semantics

concerned with the meanings of sentences in specific contexts; appropriate use of

language, appropriate application of language use in specific contexts; includes

interpretation of utterances and speech acts

• Second language acquisition: the processes by which people develop proficiency in a

language other than the one(s) they learnt to speak after birth; learning and acquiring

an additional language (not the mother tongue or first language)

• Speech act: an utterance as a functional unit in communication, usually with two kinds

of meaning – locutionary or propositional meaning (literal meaning) and illocutionary

meaning (force/intent); an utterance in speech conceived as an act of the speaker, e.g.

in saying, "I will be there tomorrow", the speaker makes a promise (Searle 1969;

Austen 1962)

1.5 Summary of research design and methodology

The study was interpretivist (anti-positivist), qualitative in nature and placed within a case

study design. The study was informed by a social-constructivist world-view (cf. section 3.2)

since the meaning created in this context, the instructional setting, is socially constructed.

The study was guided by a strong conceptual framework founded in Vygotsky’s (1986)

socio-cultural approach, specifically his theory on the Zone of Proximal Development , as

one circle of theory that intersects with theories of communication, such as that of

McCroskey, Valencic and Richmonds’ (2004) Model of Instructional Communication.

Speech Act Theory (SAT), where a speech act is considered unachieved if there is a

discrepancy between the speaker's intent and the hearer's interpretation (Holtgraves 2007;

Marcu 2000), was used as an analytical tool to determine speaker intent and hearer

interpretation. When the speaker’s intent (in this case the student teacher) is

misunderstood, communication fails. SAT places a strong focus on communicative


9

competence which centres on the premise that communication takes place when a person

uses a specific type of language, in specific contexts, in order to achieve specific meaning

(Gumperz 1982; Scarcella & Brunak 1981; Hymes 1967). My lens was the point where the

above-mentioned theories overlap in terms of misunderstanding. My assumption was that

where a speaker is not communicatively competent, misunderstandings may result.

The study was placed within a case study design as a type of ethnography (Creswell

2003). Although case studies usually research individuals rather than the group, the focus

is on the activities of that group, rather than the shared patterns of behaviour of that group.

Case study researchers are also less interested in identifying themes, but more interested

in an in-depth exploration of the case (Yin 2009; Creswell 2007; 2003). Although this study

does not match the principles of case study perfectly, there are enough corresponding

aspects to justify the choice (cf. section 3.3).

I observed in situ and interviewed 26 final year student teachers doing their teaching

practice internship in urban schools. The classes taught by these students ranged from

grade 4 to grade 11. All the classes were taught through the medium of English (LoLT),

which is not these student teachers' (or learners') mother tongue.

The focus was on misunderstandings in classrooms (at the teaching practice internship

sites) and as such the oral proficiency of the student teachers and the interaction with

learners through the LoLT were scrutinised. The qualitative methodology enabled a

detailed description of misunderstandings that occurred in the instructional setting and

provided answers to the question: "To what extent are misunderstandings the result of

English second language student teachers’ oral proficiency?"

Data collection was qualitative and was based on non-participant observations of lessons

of 45 minutes each presented by student teachers during teaching practice sessions. I

recorded each of these lessons on video and these recordings formed one data set. The

second data set was formed by an evaluation of the student teachers’ oral proficiency

using the International English Language Testing Score (IELTS) (cf. section 3.4.4.2). The

third data set consisted of data gleaned from semi-structured focus group interviews


10

conducted with the student teachers. A small-scale questionnaire was also used, where

quantitative data on the type and frequency of possible errors were collected. The data

obtained from the questionnaire formed the fourth data set.

Data analysis was done qualitatively using transcriptions of the recordings of the lessons

presented by the 26 students. The analysis of the recordings was done in search of speech

acts and the recordings were scrutinised to determine whether misunderstandings had

occurred. Verbal and non-verbal data from the student teachers specifically were used to

inform incidents of misunderstandings. By examining speech act realization patterns I had

the opportunity to describe misunderstandings in the real-life context where they occurred.

1.6 Anticipated research constraints of the study

At this point it would be prudent to mention a few anticipated difficulties regarding this

study. The instances expected to be a challenge are explained firstly in terms of technical

difficulties with the observations and then in terms of more serious academic concerns. I

had never before done research which involved the video recording of participants and was

mildly apprehensive about my personal technical abilities. However, my uncertainties had

been overcome by the time the pilot study was completed. When the second phase of the

study commenced, I was comfortable with my knowledge and new-found technological

expertise, and was confident that this aspect would not influence the data collection

process. I anticipated that the learners might experience the video recording of their lesson

as a challenge as I did not know how the learners would react during the lesson. I did not

want them to play up to the camera and thereby distract the student teacher or distort the

findings. I did not want to provide too much detail about what I was researching, either to

the learners or to the student teachers, and so influence the natural proceedings during the

lesson. However, I had to provide a detailed enough account to conform to ethical

requirements. I, therefore, provided sufficient detail in the letters of information and

consent/assent and in addition asked the student teachers to explain to the learners the

importance of behaving naturally during the lesson and to ignore the camera as far as

possible. This worked well and only minor problems were experienced and only at the

commencement of the recordings.


11

I was also concerned about how the student teachers would react to being video recorded

and observed. Jansen (2009a:42) indicates that one of the limitations in research is what

he calls "empathetic neutrality". He states that neutrality may be influenced by the fact that

the researcher now fulfils the role of observer and not participant. This may be unfamiliar to

individuals, and/or groups, and could influence their behaviour. This was a consideration in

my study, as the participants were not used to being video recorded. Most of the

participants acknowledged that they were nervous or apprehensive, but I was able to set

their minds at ease by explaining that the purpose of my study was to gain an

understanding of communication in the instructional setting and not to judge or evaluate

them. Once the lesson was underway they were able to concentrate on the learners and

the lesson and not the fact that they were being video recorded.

Another challenge associated with observations is that the information gathered is highly

selective and subjective. I addressed this in the study by being conscious of my own biases

and assumptions and dealing with them in a particular way, as explained in section 3.7. My

role in the observations was as passive non-participant. Since a qualitative researcher

attempts to understand the phenomenon under scrutiny, it is possible that I might have

become too subjective. A different researcher may interpret the study differently. In terms

of the chosen research methodology, it is possible that a Discourse Analysis or

Conversation Analysis or Ethnographic Content Analysis approach could have provided

different results.

A more serious concern was whether I would actually observe instances of

misunderstandings in a lesson. The possibility existed that a lesson of 45 minutes would

pass without any misunderstandings having taken place and the study, therefore, not being

viable. As such, my proposition that misunderstandings may be the result of student

teachers' oral proficiency would be disproved. I shared this concern with colleagues and

my supervisor and was constantly assured that in environments where the LoLT is not the

first language of either the student teacher or the learner, misunderstandings regularly

manifested. After the pilot study had been completed, and having seen what was available

in terms of data, I was convinced of the viability of the study.


12

As none of the available electronic analytical tools to assist with data analysis (such as

Atlas.ti, eCove or Nvivo), was deemed suitable, data analysis was done manually. I found

that although these tools assist in organizing and classifying the data, they do not offer an

interpretation of the data. Even so, I was still concerned that not using these tools could in

some way influence my interpretation of the data. Since the study was mainly qualitative, I

felt satisfied that by adhering to sound principles of data collection and analysis techniques

and by providing rich descriptions of every step in the process, as well as asking critical

readers to verify my interpretation, I would be able to interpret the data without using such

tools.

1.7 Outline of the study

In this chapter I provided introductory information on misunderstandings and

communication. I provided an overview of the rationale for the study as well as the

theoretical framework underpinning the study. An indication of the methodology used in

collecting and analysing the data, the key concepts pertaining to the study as well as the

scope of the study were provided. The remaining chapters are divided as follows:

Chapter 2 provides a review of the literature relevant to this study, namely second

language acquisition, communicative competence, speech act theory, misunderstanding

and instructional communication. The relevant literature discussed provides the conceptual

framework for the study. The chapter is divided into sub-topics which serve as explanation

of successful communication in the classroom. An account of Speech Act Theory, its origin

and the principles which enable meaningful communication are given. Theories on

communicative competence, classification of speech acts and the creation of meaning are

also discussed in this chapter. Chapter 3 presents a full description of the research

methodology pertaining to the study and the application of Speech Act Theory in evaluating

misunderstandings, as well as ethical considerations and issues of trustworthiness. An

explanation of the selection criteria and the data collection and analysis techniques is

provided. Chapter 4 is a presentation and discussion of the findings resulting from the data.

The chapter offers an interpretation of the findings obtained in the analysis, in accordance

with the theories on communicative competence, misunderstandings and instructional


13

communication. Chapter 5 provides conclusions drawn from the study. The findings are

used to answer the research questions articulated in chapter 1 and to discuss the

implications and significance of the study. The chapter concludes with recommendations

for interested stakeholders, such as teacher educators, curriculum planners, policy makers

and education specialists. Avenues for further research are suggested.

Chapter 2 Conceptual framework

14


2.1 Introduction

The conceptual framework for this study is drawn from the literature review to describe the

occurrence, type, frequency and causes of misunderstanding in an instructional setting. In

order to study misunderstandings, I chose theories for second language acquisition,

particularly Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory, a social constructivist perspective on learning,

and specifically his Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), as well as elements from several

theories on communication, including communicative competence, a pragmatic

perspective, and instructional communication (McCroskey et al 2004). The lens through

which I viewed misunderstandings was where the theories intersected; the ZPD, as one

circle of theory, intersects with theories on communication. The misunderstanding occurs

where they overlap and acts as the interface between them.

Since Vygotsky's theory of ZPD is applied in studies on second language acquisition

(SLA), and since communicative competence (CC) is an important part of communication

theory, these two concepts were included in the discussion as they relate to

misunderstandings. Furthermore, Speech Act Theory (SAT), integral to communicative

competence, was employed as analytical tool in this study to describe the identified

misunderstandings, and was, therefore, also included in the discussion. Figure 2.1

provides a schematic description of the conceptual framework underpinning this study.


15

Figure 2.1: Conceptual framework

Legend:

IC = instructional communication; CC = communicative competence;

SLA = second language acquisition; ZPD = zone of proximal development;

ZCD = zone of current development; MU = misunderstanding

As introduction to the aforementioned concepts the particular context of South Africa will be

described as any discussion on language issues in South Africa inevitably is combined with

the political background and multilingual nature of South Africa.

After 1994 the National Department of Education in South Africa adopted a multilingual

language policy (The Language in Education Policy in terms of section 3 (4) (m) of the

National Education Policy Act 27 of 1996) where official recognition was given to nine


16

indigenous (African) languages (Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga,

isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu) as well as Afrikaans and English, resulting in the

sanctioning of 11 official languages into the constitution. The intention was, among others,

to promote the status of African languages by using them as languages of learning and

teaching (LoLT) (Department of Education 2002), but also to promote multilingualism by

giving each language the accreditation that it deserves (Broom 2004). The Language in

Education Policy (Department of Education 1996) has as its underlying principle the use of

a home language as the LoLT, especially in the early years of schooling, while it provides

access to an additional language (usually English) in order to facilitate the bridging of

racial, linguistic and regional divides (Heugh 2010). The current language policy

(Department of Education 1997) states that an individual learner has the right to choose

the language in which he or she wishes to receive instruction. It would seem, however, as if

English and Afrikaans remain the LoLT in most schools (Kamwangamalu 2000). In many

schools, particularly rural schools where learners are predominantly black, the African

languages are used as languages of learning and teaching from grade 0 to grade 3, after

which English (not Afrikaans, because of, among other reasons, its negative association

with apartheid) is used as LoLT (Kamwangamalu 2000). Where learners do not speak the

LoLT, it is possible that authentic teaching and learning cannot take place (Myburgh,

Poggenpoel & Van Rensburg 2004).

If this picture is accurate, the learning of a second language can only be fraught with

difficulty. Added to this, in the South African context, are issues of under-performing,

dysfunctional schools; a problematic education system; under-qualified teachers and

inadequate teacher competencies (Bloch 2009). Despite societal and educational

transformations that have taken place in the post-apartheid South Africa, many schools still

face educational disadvantages, and thus the adequate development of language skills

should be a national priority (Donald, Condy & Forrester 2003). In essence South Africa

moved from an officially bilingual nation (during the apartheid era prior to 1994), with

English and Afrikaans as its two official languages, to a multilingual nation with 11 official

languages (after 1994). Regarding the 11 official languages in South Africa, the national

policy states that it is important for learners to reach levels of proficiency in at least two


17

languages and that they are able to communicate in their vernacular (Department of

Education 2002).

South Africa has a population of over 46 million people (Statistics South Africa 2004). The

preliminary predictions for the 2011 Census indicate that this number will have increased to

over 50 million. However, based on the previous census (2001) and the most recent

published statistics, only 8,2% of the 46 million people claim English as their mother tongue

(Statistics South Africa 2004). For the vast majority of learners, more than 90%, the

language of learning and teaching (LoLT) is English (Strauss, Van der Linde, Plekker &

Strauss 1999). Table 2.1 provides an indication of the home languages of learners in South

African schools and the percentage in which these home languages are used as LoLT.

Table 2.1: Home languages of learners in South African schools (Statistics South

Africa 2004)

Home language LoLT: Grades 1–4 LoLT: Grades 10–12

Zulu 25% 23% 7%

Xhosa 22% 16% 6%

Afrikaans 10% 10% 12%

English 6% 22% 65%

Demographically, Zulu (25%) is the most widely spoken home language in South Africa,

followed by Xhosa (22%) (Department of Basic Education 2010). However, since English

remains central to the country's government and administration (Singh 2009), English is

the predominant language of learning and teaching (LoLT) (Probyn 2001). English is

currently still the most powerful language and is used for education, diplomacy and

economy. It serves as the country's lingua franca and is seen as the language of the elite,

power and privilege. Many people view it as a means to achieve unlimited vertical social

mobility. It is also the dominant language of trade and industry (Heugh 2010; Van der Walt

2007; Kamwangamalu 2000). Knowledge of English is, therefore, perceived to be essential

for economic empowerment (Webb 1992; Reagan 1985). Because English is the language

that holds the highest status it may become the sole official language in South Africa

(Broom, 2004). Kaschula and De Vries (2000) claim that it is ironic that English is regarded

as the language of trade, because it is spoken by such a small minority and thereby a large


18

proportion of the population is marginalises and excluded from participating in the

economic sector. Despite this discrepancy, English is still acknowledged as the language

of economic empowerment. Webb (1992) and Beukes (1992) stress that upward mobility is

impossible without proficiency in English. This has resulted in English being the dominant

medium of instruction at most educational institutions (Singh 2009; Uys 2006a). "Less than

one South African child in ten speaks English as their home (first) language. By the end of

grade three, most schoolchildren are taught and assessed in English" (Fleisch 2008:98). It

is no wonder, then, that English second language (L2) learners in South Africa face special

challenges when trying to achieve academic success. Competence in English is seemingly

a prerequisite for successful participation in the national, political and economic system.

English has now acquired the title of the world's leading "global language" because it is

used for business, science and politics (Crystal 2003:1).

The aforementioned situation might be considered one of the reasons for the resistance of

many people in South Africa towards the use of African languages as media of instruction

or LoLT. In essence, many parents choose English as the LoLT for their children, mainly

due to the reasons provided earlier and the status currently afforded the language. That is

the reason why many parents perceive English proficiency as essential for educational

success (Buthelezi 2003). It is clear that English has gained more territory and political

importance than Afrikaans enjoyed previously in the apartheid era. Currently, English and

Afrikaans remain the main official languages of instruction, with English also being used

more and more in traditionally Afrikaans schools. These practices make it obvious that

English is assigned more value than any other official language (Heugh 2010;

Kamwangamalu 2000) and is likely to remain the chosen medium of instruction in South

Africa, especially in secondary schools (Probyn 2001).

A grave concern for me is that learners may not only be hindered by their own low level of

English language skills, but also by those of their teachers. Teachers' general competence

in the language of instruction, their knowledge about the language and how they speak the

language are crucial issues which could influence the effectiveness of their teaching and

the learners' understanding of new content (Hugo & Nieman 2010). The lack of adequately

proficient teachers who teach through the medium of English has been named as one of


19

the major barriers to effective learning (Evans & Cleghorn 2010; Heugh 2009; Alexander

1997). According to The National Teacher Education Audit conducted by Hofmeyr and Hall

(1996), the majority of teachers in South Africa are under-qualified or not qualified to teach.

In addition to this, it seems as if teachers have limited oral proficiency in English, they lack

the skills to teach English as a second language and do not possess the knowledge to

teach in a bilingual/multilingual education context. A more recent study on teachers' ability

to read English in a postgraduate programme at the University of KwaZulu-Natal shows

that a third of the sample "struggled to read to learn" (Bertram 2006:5–18). As a

consequence, a large number of learners are taught in a language other than their home

language and often by teachers who are not adequately prepared to teach through the

medium of English (Heugh 2009; Uys 2006a). Although English is spoken widely in South

Africa today, it cannot be assumed that all speakers are fluent in English. Because of its

wide use in South Africa, English is not considered a foreign language, but in most cases it

is in actual fact the third or even fourth language acquired by many learners and teachers.

Since English is the LoLT in most classrooms where a variety of indigenous African

languages are often spoken as mother tongue, the linguistic and instructional context

becomes a complex one, particularly since the teachers are often non-native speakers of

English themselves.

Added to this is the issue of cultural diversity where learners experience a shift from not

only the home language to English, but also from home values and cultural norms to a

Western ideology with typical individualist norms and values (Evans & Cleghorn 2010).

This may limit learners' understanding and prohibit their social integration into the larger

South African community. The result is a rich source for misunderstanding in the

classroom. Often parents do not consider the relationship between the child's first

language (L1) and the language of instruction (Myburgh, Poggenpoel & Van Rensburg

2004). This in turn influences the learning experience of the learner and the pattern is

repeated endlessly. Wierzbicka (2003) proposes that the need for English to be regarded

as an asset and an empowering literacy has never been more important than today where

millions of people cross borders, not only between countries but between languages, and

where more and more people of many different cultural backgrounds have to live together

in multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies. Wierzbicka (2003:17) continues to say that


20

"peaceful co-existence, mutual tolerance and necessary understanding in the work place,

in the increasingly global and yet in many places, increasingly diversified world, rely on

research into differences between cultural norms associated with different languages". I

concur, but want to stress the importance of the teacher's linguistic proficiency in the LoLT,

especially in the instructional context. The linguistic role of the teacher is crucial, as the

assumption can be made that the teacher's oral proficiency and language skills in the LoLT

could be transferred to their learners. This may be a primary cause for misunderstanding

as well as learners' understanding and usage of English being affected.

Kendall, Lin and Perkins (2006) emphasize that second language speakers need to

develop knowledge of pragmatic and socio-linguistic rules in order to avoid communication

failure and misunderstanding. In South Africa it would seem as if this knowledge of

pragmatic rules has not been adequately mastered by many second language speakers,

partly because South Africa has a diverse mix of languages and cultures, but also due to

educational disadvantages experienced by many, as explained earlier in this section. To

address the challenge of adequate development of language skills, the National Curriculum

Statement (Department of Education 2002) outlines the need to include in the teaching of

reading, writing, listening and speaking skills, other literacies such as computer, critical and

media literacies.

My understanding of the aforementioned is that speakers need to develop proficiency in

the target (second) language in order to read, write and understand cognitively demanding

texts such as novels, plays, science laboratory reports, historic accounts and mathematical

word problems. Besides developing the four communicative skills, namely listening,

speaking, reading and writing, speakers need to go one step further to gain what is called

communicative competence. Communicative competence means acquiring both linguistic

and pragmatic competence. These concepts are further explained later in this chapter

(cf. section 2.3). In situations where learners have little knowledge of the language of

learning and teaching, they tend to be invisible, passive and inaudible in the classroom

(Hugo & Nieman 2010; Cummins 2001). This in turn may hamper their becoming proficient

in speaking the target language or becoming communicatively competent, which may lead

to pragmatic failure. The only way to avoid pragmatic failure is to develop pragmatic


21

competence which El Samaty (2005:341) describes as "the ability to use language

effectively in order to understand language in context". Since most language teachers do

not stress pragmatic knowledge in their classrooms but rather focus on linguistic

knowledge (Al Falasi 2007), learners do not have sufficient opportunities to communicate in

the target language, resulting in inadequate oral proficiency. As young adults, speakers

with inadequate oral proficiency enrol at university to become teachers, and, as in the case

of this study, intend to become teachers of English or teachers of other subjects using

English as LoLT.

I argue that the misunderstandings encountered in the classroom may be as a result of the

teacher's inadequate pragmatic competence and poor oral proficiency. It is for this reason

that I wanted to explore the occurrence, type, frequency and causes of misunderstandings

that occur in an instructional setting. I believe that two aspects play a crucial role in the

exploration of misunderstandings as a phenomenon in the classroom. Firstly, how

speakers become proficient in the target language, in other words how speakers acquire

their second language (cf. section 2.2) may be crucial to becoming competent in that

language. Secondly, being competent in the target language implies more than just being

orally proficient; it implies being communicatively competent (cf. section 2.3).

Communicative competence is viewed as the ability to process social as well as linguistic

knowledge (Yano 2000; Blum-Kulka 1982) and it implies the appropriate use of language in

a social context. The two aforementioned concepts are intrinsically linked, however, for

ease of interpretation and for the purpose of clarity I will discuss them separately, although

when discussing one concept the other concept will inevitably be referred to.

Since the context of this study is the instructional setting, an exposition of the instructional

setting and the instructional communication (cf. section 2.5) used in such settings follow

these sections. Furthermore, since the proposition of this study is that misunderstandings

in the classroom may be caused by the teacher's inadequate oral proficiency, a description

of misunderstanding (cf. section 2.6) concludes this chapter. These key concepts are

discussed as a broad conceptual framework as they relate to misunderstandings.


22

2.2 Second language acquisition

A well established and diverse body of knowledge exists on the topic of SLA. The main

thrust of this research covered topics such as the comprehension of indirectness and

pragmatic awareness in the 1970s, discourse competence and pragmatic transfer in the

1980s and the effect of instruction on the classroom learning of second language

pragmatics in the 1990s (Kasper 2005). This research was influenced by Hymes's (1967)

theory of communicative competence (CC), (cf. section 2.3), Searle's (1969) speech act

theory (SAT) (cf. section 2.4) and Grice's (1975) theory of conversational implicature3.

Studies on SLA have evolved from structural linguistics, behaviour psychology, generative

linguistics and cognitive psychology to constructivism (Nel & Swanepoel 2010). Many

theories were developed specifically to explain why children acquire language in different

ways, but I will discuss three of these theories which I consider the most important. The

Behaviourist, the Innatist and the Social Interactionist theories will be discussed to show

how the understanding of second language acquisition has developed through the years.

Firstly, the Behaviourist Theory (Skinner 1953) suggests that language is the acquisition of

sounds and words that have been sufficiently reinforcement and that language acquisition

is like any other kind of cognitive behaviour (Brown 2000; Moerk 1992; Skinner 1957;

1953). The Behaviourist Theory is a development of the major learning theory developed

by Skinner (1953) which emphasizes stimulus, response, and reinforcement as the basic

elements of learning. For language acquisition, behaviourists claim that children learn their

first language through stimulus, response, and reinforcement, positing that imitation and

association are essential in the process (Brown 2000). This implies that learners will imitate

what they hear and then through practise will develop certain habits (Conrad 2001).

Behaviourists also believe that in the process of learning, children respond to

environmental stimuli in an observable way (Reynolds 2009; Harmon & Jones 2005). In

second language learning, the processes involved also consist of imitation, repetition, and

reinforcement, but particularly of grammatical structures. Errors should be corrected

immediately to avoid learners forming bad habits that would be difficult to change later.

3 Read Grice (1981) for information on conversational maxims, cooperative principal and implicature.


23

This view started the well-known drill-and-skill practice which was often conducted through

listening to audiotapes in language laboratories (Reynolds 2009; Brown 2000). A criticism

of this theory is that imitation does not necessarily help the learner in real-life situations. A

small number of pre-practised sentences are not enough to uphold conversation, not even

when an instructor is present (Conrad 2001).

The second theory, the Innatist Theory (Krashen 1985; Dulay, Burt, & Krashen 1982),

similar to Chomsky's (1965) Nativist theory, states that learning is natural for human

beings. Dulay, Burt and Krashen (1982) propose that English language learners construct

the rules of the second language in a creative manner similar to that observed in first

language acquisition. Innatists believe that babies enter the world with a biological

inclination, an inborn device, to learn language (Reynolds 2009; Brown 2000). The Innatist

Theory does explain to some extent how children can generate or invent language they

have never heard (Reynolds 2009).

Krashen (1982) developed a series of hypotheses about second language acquisition that

have become the foundation for second language teaching (Brown 2000). Krashen's five

hypotheses are: (1) the acquisition-learning hypothesis, (2) the monitor hypothesis, (3) the

natural order hypothesis, (4) the input hypothesis, and (5) the affective filter hypothesis

(Krashen 1985).

Chomsky (1965:25) supported the Innatist Theory saying that language acquisition could

only be explained by an "innate, biological language acquisition device" (LAD), an inbuilt

mechanism which enables a child to automatically decode the language it hears (Reynolds

2009; Brown 2000). Specifically, Chomsky (1965:25) claims that infants universally

possess an innate "grammar template", or universal grammar, which allows them to

choose the appropriate grammatical rule of the language they hear spoken around them,

as they gradually construct the grammar of their mother tongue. Chomsky (1965:25)

suggests that all languages have a similar "deep structure" in common despite the many

differences in their "surface structure". He argues that the ability of language acquisition is

innate; therefore taking a biological stand. Children will automatically acquire language by

being exposed to it.


24

Lastly, the Social Interaction Theory (Vygotsky 1978), also called Interactionist Theory,

describes language acquisition as being influenced by the interaction of a variety of factors

such as physical, linguistic, cognitive, and mainly social factors, because children learn a

language in order to function in society (Brown 2000). The Interactionist view holds that

mothers play a critical role in modifying language to foster the child's innate capacity for

language acquisition (Reynolds 2009; Brown 2000). Children's language develops over

time and not within a single interaction. As children's language develops, they

simultaneously construct the meanings of thousands of words. The Interactionist Theory

links closely with the Constructivist Theory which posits that children acquire language

when they interact with adults and peers.

Vygotsky's (1986; 1978) work is often placed with this theory because of the importance of

social interaction in learning a language. Vygotsky's Social Constructivist Theory (1978)

holds that language is the medium through which children learn, access knowledge, think

and solve problems. Children learn the cultural ways and views of their world through

informal conversations with adults and through formal schooling (Vygotsky 1986). Vygotsky

is particularly known for his theory on Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which was

introduced as part of a general analysis of child development and learning (Chaiklin 2003).

According to Vygotsky (1978: 86) the ZPD is "the distance between the actual

developmental level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of

potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in

collaboration with more capable peers". In other words, the ZPD refers to "those functions

that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation" (Vygotsky 1978:86); the

actual developmental level refers to "functions that have already matured"

(Vygotsky1978:86). He claims "what the child is able to do in collaboration today he will be

able to do independently tomorrow" (Vygotsky 1987:211).

Vygotsky's main contribution regarding the ZPD was that instruction and learning do not

take place because of development, but rather that instruction and learning open up the

way for development to take place (Dunn & Lantolf 1998). This theory assumes interaction

"between a more competent and a less competent person on task, such that the less

competent person becomes independently proficient at what was initially a jointly-


25

accomplished task" (Chaiklin 2003:2; Harland 2003). Learning thus takes place as the

result of interaction, but interaction within the ZPD (Nassaji & Swain 2000:35). This idea,

which is known as scaffolding, refers to a "situation where a knowledgeable participant can

create supportive conditions in which the novice can participate, and extend his or her

current skills and knowledge to higher levels of competence" (Donato 1994:40). Thus, the

teacher helps the learner to achieve a level of performance within the ZPD which the

learner would not be capable of while acting independently and will as a result be able to

achieve alone (Scott 1998; Tharp & Gallimore 1988). This aspect focuses on the notion

that a child is able to perform a certain number of tasks alone but in collaboration can

perform a greater number of tasks, and can perform tasks more competently (Scott 1998).

This view has important implications for second language learning, one of which is that

learners need to be supported in the difficult task of learning a second language while

interacting with the teacher. Figure 2.2 is a visual representation of Vygotsky's ZPD as

adapted from Harland (2003:265).

Figure 2.2: Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development

ZPD

ZCD


26

The zone of current development (ZCD) in figure 2.2 above represents the level that a

learner can reach through independent problem solving and the ZPD as the potential

distance the learner could reach with the help of a more capable peer (Harland 2003:269).

After successful instruction, the outer edge of the ZPD then defines the limits of the new

ZCD.

When the principles of the ZPD are applied to language learning, they combine together all

the relevant aspects of the language learning situation, including "the teacher, the learner,

their social and cultural history, their goals and motives, as well as the resources available

to them, including those that are dialogically constructed together" (Aljaafreh & Lantolf

1994:468; Dunn & Lantolf 1998:425). From this perspective, learning mainly takes place

within the learner's ZPD (Nassaji & Swain 2000). Harmon and Jones (2005) support

Vygotsky's theory of ZPD and claim that adults modify their speech to operate within the

zone of proximal development of children. Harmon and Jones (2005) claim that language

acquisition is a developmental process with stages which are easily identifiable.

An approach to learning based on the Social Interaction Theory claims that "there is no

such thing as knowledge separate from the knower, but only knowledge we construct

ourselves as we learn" (Gottlieb 2000b:1). It assumes that people are interested in

understanding the world around them rather than passively gathering objective knowledge

as is proposed in behaviourist theories. Interactionists view the communicative process of

natural conversations between native and non-native speakers as the defining element of

the language acquisition process (Long & Porter 1985). The focus in this process is on the

ways in which native speakers adjust their speech to make themselves understood. This

trial-and-error process of give-and-take in communication as speakers try to understand

and be understood is called the negotiation of meaning (Brown 2000). As meaning is

negotiated, non-native speakers are in a position to control the communication process

during conversations to some extent, allowing their speech partners to provide input that is

more comprehensible (Brown 2000). This is done by asking for repetitions or reacting in a

way that shows their non-understanding. The listener's natural response would be to

rephrase or use another clue to convey meaning, such as gesturing.


27

Of the three approaches, the Behaviourist approach, which emphasises that children

imitate what they have heard, is the least adequate for explaining language development in

children (Brown 2000). In contrast, the Innatist view emphasises the child, and particularly

the innate, biological mechanisms which account for language acquisition. The

Interactionist perspective acknowledges both the child's role and that of their mothers in

the social environment and holds that social interactions, with communication as its goal,

are the primary ingredients in language acquisition (Gottlieb 2000b; Long & Porter 1985).

As such it is the perspective adopted for this study.

Current research indicates that a second language is learnt when it is used in meaningful

contexts and in natural communication situations and not necessarily through direct

instruction in the rules of the language (Brown 2007; Holtgraves 2007; Seedhouse 2004;

Thomas 2003; Atkinson 2002; Marcu 2000). The language used by learners is learnt in

these natural situations or authentic contexts, which often include a variety of topics, such

as the geographical nature of a country or the planets that make up the solar system

(Brown 2007). SLA requires a "complex set of skills" such as age, psychological,

personality and socio-cultural factors which all add to its complexity (Brown 2007:1–3).

Furthermore, inadequate mastery of grammar, together with socio-linguistic

inappropriateness, may cause learners to appear incompetent, or impolite or improper. It is

not impossible to address these problems, because a second language is usually acquired

more successfully when the focus of instruction is on the meaning rather than on the

linguistic form of the target language (Krashen 1982). When the teacher places the focus

on meaning in instructional communication, conversations are much more natural. These

natural conversations allow learners to receive the necessary input and structures that

promote sound second language acquisition and help them become orally proficient or

communicatively competent (Garcia 1993). SLA is thus a situated, integrated, socio-

cognitive process where learners, teachers and contexts are integrated (Atkinson 2002).

The aforementioned sections describe the ideal situation in an instructional setting where

the teacher is communicatively competent. What is problematic is when the input and

structures mentioned above are not accurate or appropriate, as is anticipated in this study.

Sound second language acquisition cannot take place when the teacher is unable to


28

provide accurate input. The learner will then "fall back" on the L1 knowledge to supplement

L2 production (Krashen 1981:68). Central to Krashen's view of second language

acquisition is the input hypothesis (Krashen 1981; 1976). According to the input

hypothesis, a second language can only be acquired when learners understand the target

language in natural communication situations. In Krashen's (1985b:2) view, "humans

acquire language in only one way – by understanding messages, or by receiving

'comprehensible input' . . . that contains structures at our next 'stage' – structures that are a

bit beyond our current level of competence".

A central element of the input hypothesis is that the input language must be

understandable, hence the term "comprehensible input", but should also contain

grammatical structures that are "just a bit beyond the acquirer's current level of second

language development (abbreviated as i + 1, with i standing for input and +1 indicating the

challenging level that is a bit beyond the learner's current level of proficiency)" (Krashen

1981:68; 1976:163). More specifically, i is the learner's "current competence, the last rule

acquired along the natural order" and i + 1 is "the next rule the acquirer is 'due to' acquire

or is eligible to acquire along the natural order" (Krashen 1985b:101). Thus, Krashen's

theory combines a facet of the learner, namely the learner's internalized grammar; "i", and

a facet of the input, namely "+ 1" (Dunn & Lantolf 1998: 423). Krashen (1982:21) also

states that for acquisition to take place, input must contain i + 1 (1982:21) and that "if

communication is successful, i + 1 is provided". Krashen (1985b) suggests that language

learners have the ability to understand this complex level of language input because they

include extra-linguistic information such as gestures, pictures, general background

knowledge and context.

The concept of acquisition used in this study is based on a framework of language

acquisition derived from Vygotsky's claims on socio-cultural processes (Vygotsky 1986).

Vygotsky (1986) claims that language-mediated interaction leads to an ongoing cognitive

process of language internalization. It is through this interaction that competence in a

language is achieved (Slavin 2003). A social constructivist approach to SLA is relevant to

this study since it maintains that children learn by doing tasks and activities through

language with the assistance of more competent peers or adults (Slavin 2003). The student


29

teachers who participated in this study assumingly fulfil the role of more competent adults.

A social constructivist approach differs from Krashen's (1985;1982) distinction between

language acquisition and language learning and as such does not include processes of

language acquisition which happen outside of formal contexts of language teaching or

where the target language is taught explicitly.

Based on experiential knowledge and on my reading of the literature, my understanding of

second language acquisition, therefore, is in agreement with that of Krashen and Brown

(2007), Consolo (2006a), Krashen (1987) and Vygotsky (1986) in that it is socio-interactive

in nature and is based on the assumption that cognition develops by means of interactive

procedures which occur with at least two interlocutors, one being linguistically more

competent than the other. It is through this lens that I viewed the phenomenon under

scrutiny, namely misunderstandings.

Instructional contexts, such as the language classroom, are socio-linguistic environments

where interlocutors make use of a variety of language functions to establish a

communication system (Consolo 2006b). The input for language acquisition is expected to

be provided by classroom interaction. It is in classroom interaction that meaning is

negotiated, especially when interlocutors try to avoid or solve misunderstandings or

breakdowns in communication. Interaction entails adjusting one's speech so that it

matches the effect one intends to have on the listener. Interaction further entails

anticipating the listener's response and allowing for possible misunderstandings, therefore

clarifying one's own and the other's intentions and arriving at the closest possible match

between intended, perceived, and anticipated meanings (Kramsch 1986). The ability to

negotiate meaning in this way happens when the speaker is competent in a given

language, but more specifically, also communicatively competent. The primary focus of

SLA is the development of communicative rather than linguistic or grammatical

competence (Sage 2003; Canale & Swain 1980). This communicative competence is

defined as the ability to process social as well as linguistic knowledge (Sage 2003; Yano

2000; Blum-Kulka 1982) and implies the appropriate use of language in a social context.

The next section provides an explication of the origin as well as the importance of

mastering communicative competence.


30

2.3 Communicative competence

The term "communicative competence", as a subsection of pragmatic competence, was

first coined by Hymes (1967; 1972b) and refers to the ability of an interlocutor to convey

and interpret messages, and to negotiate meaning within a given context. In Hymes's view

(1972b), a speaker who has acquired communicative competence has acquired not only

knowledge of language use, but also the ability to use language. The speaker has thus

acquired knowledge of the complete set of rules and conventions which govern the skilled

use of language in society. Communicative competence refers to grammatical knowledge

(e.g. phonology, morphology, syntax) as well as social knowledge about how and when to

use utterances appropriately in ways that are acceptable to other members in the speech

event; thus social as well as linguistic knowledge (Kachru, Kachru & Nelson 2009; Yano

2000; Becker 1982; Blum-Kulka 1982; Hymes 1972b; 1967). It is the cultural and social

context that influences these features of linguistic performance (Kachru et al 2009). This

view differs from Chomsky's conception of language as a mental attribute (Kaburise 2005).

Gumperz (1982) identifies communicative competence as the linguistic knowledge and

knowledge of communicative conventions (or pragmatic knowledge) that speakers must

have to create and sustain conversational cooperation. He states that this involves both

grammar and contextualization. Canale (1983) claims that communicative competence

consists of four competences, namely grammatical, socio-linguistic, discourse and strategic

competence. Tanck (2002) states that communicative competence is the knowledge of

both the structural and functional elements of a language and implies the ability to use

language forms in a wide variety of situations.

Speakers considered to be communicatively competent are able to take into account the

relationship between the speakers involved and the social and cultural context of the

situation (Tanck 2002; Gass & Selinker 2001; Lightbown & Spada 1999; Savignon 1985).

I concur with the above views, but emphasize the last, namely the relationship between the

speaker and the social and cultural context of the situation. Failing to grasp this relationship

may lead to inappropriate utterances, in either meaning or in form (e.g. in speech acts such

as inviting, complaining and requesting). It is especially indirect utterances or hints that

second language speakers find difficult, for example, when the student teacher says, "I will


31

come for you" (meaning "I will listen to your question in a moment"), the learner may

interpret this utterance as a threat. This may be because the second language speaker

lacks the ability to draw inferences (Akmajian, Demers, Farmer & Harnish 1995). In this

regard, Akmajian et al (1995) claim that in the process of learning how to communicate

through using language, we acquire a variety of presumptions as well as a system of

inferential strategies. More than just a shared language is necessary for successful oral

communication, because the hearer has to have the ability to interpret a speaker's intent

when communicating. This means that both the speaker and the hearer must share a

system of beliefs and inferences, which function as strategies for communication (Akmajian

et al 1995). Akmajian et al (1995) call this system the Inferential Model and claim that these

inferential strategies explain how hearers arrive at the most likely meaning of an utterance.

Failing to reach the intended meaning may lead to misunderstandings and failed

communication.

The Inferential Model proposes that successful communication depends on the fact that the

speaker/hearer understands meaning, or the ability to distinguish between linguistic

meaning (actual words or dictionary definition) and speaker meaning (actual intention, what

the speaker in a certain context means by his words). The word "cap", for example, has a

linguistic meaning of type of hat or top for a bottle or pen, etc. In the context of students

entering a lecture hall, the word "caps" in the sentence "Take off your caps", has the

speaker meaning of hat or head covering. The hearer, therefore, interprets the context to

understand what the speaker meaning is.

A hearer has to determine from certain clues in the context of the words whether they are

spoken non-literally or indirectly, but s/he also has to determine what they actually mean.

This is only possible when both the speaker and the hearer share the presumptions and

apply the inferential strategies pointed out by Akmajan et al (1995). When a hearer has no

reason not to believe that a speaker holds the presumptions as true, and when placed in

context, the words spoken are inappropriate, s/he will be able to infer that the speaker is

speaking non-literally (Akmajian et al 1995). Trying to determine the speaker's actual

meaning or intent is often thought to be good guess-work, based on the presumptions

shared by both (Blum-Kulka 1990), but the Inferential Model holds that not guessing, but


32

systematic following of set strategies, leads to success in communication. For a more

detailed explanation of this model see addendum A.

I support this theory and argue that where these set strategies are not adhered to by all

speakers in a communication event, speaker meaning may be incorrectly interpreted. The

result would be a rich source for misunderstanding. Researchers (Holtgraves 2007; Kasper

2005; Blum-Kulka 1990) have argued that native speakers seem to have the instinctive

ability to address their incorrect interpretation and will try to find reasons for speaker intent,

but that the non-native speaker has difficulties with this process, since cultural and first

language (L1) transfer interfere with their interpretation (cf. section 2.4).

It would thus seem that communicative competence not only includes knowledge of the

linguistic forms of a language, such as grammar, vocabulary and phonology, but also

knowledge of the function of a language (Yano 2000), i.e. in Hymes's terms, the knowledge

of when, how, and with whom it is appropriate to use these forms (Hymes 1972b). Social

relationships may affect communicative interaction and may have a serious effect on the

production and interpretation of language (Spencer-Oatey 1993). This could have practical

implications, because one of the most important tasks when an additional language is

acquired is learning the rules and mechanisms which underlie its appropriate use.

Bachman (1990:82) calls this "the contexts of discourse and situation" and explains that

language proficiency includes both discourse, namely individual utterances and sentences,

and socio-linguistic context. It includes a number of abilities of the speaker, most

importantly grammatical and pragmatic competences. Speakers taking part in discourse

need to have knowledge which cannot be explained only in terms of Chomsky's (1965)

"linguistic competence"; Kasper (1989:38) claims "they need to know how to

• produce language which is appropriate to the situation

• use the appropriate forms of language to achieve their purposes

• combine sentences in a meaningful way"

Such a speaker is, then, assumed to be communicatively competent which would include

the four competencies commonly referred to as grammatical competence, socio-linguistic

competence, strategic competence and discourse competence (Canale 1983).

Grammatical competence refers to the Chomskyan concept of linguistic competence. This


33

is typically the native speaker's knowledge of syntax, lexicon, morphology, and phonology

of the language. It includes the ability to manipulate the above-mentioned aspects to

produce well-formed words and sentences (Moodley 2010; Alptekin 2002). These aspects

provide linguistic knowledge of the rules of usage which usually result in accurate

performance. Canale and Swain (1980) emphasize that grammatical competence is of

great importance for any communicative approach to language teaching,

Socio-linguistic competence is "the extent to which utterances are produced and

understood appropriately in different socio-linguistic contexts" (Canale & Swain 1980:30)

and includes knowledge of the social rules of language use and an understanding of the

social context in which such language is used (Thomas 1983). Appropriateness of

utterances includes appropriateness of meaning and appropriateness of form

(Moodley 2010). Aspects such as the speakers' role in an interaction, the social status of

that speaker, the information the speakers share and the purpose of the interaction are all

important aspects to consider for appropriateness. When referring to social context here it

means the culture-specific context in which that culture's norms, values, beliefs and

behaviour patterns are displayed (Alptekin 2002).

Strategic competence means being able to deal with an authentic communicative situation

and being able to continue the conversation (Alptekin 2002). It assumes knowledge of

communication strategies which allow the speaker to compensate for inadequate

knowledge of rules, or for aspects such as fatigue, inattention and distraction, all of which

may inhibit the application of such rules (Hyde 1998). Strategic competence includes

sufficient mastery of verbal and non-verbal communication strategies (Moodley 2010)

which interlocutors use to compensate for misunderstandings or breakdowns in

communication.

Discourse competence is being able to cope in the extended use of language in a

particular context, which is usually managed by connecting a series of utterances to form a

cohesive whole (Alptekin 2002). The ability to connect utterances is usually implicit as the

interlocutor will link ideas to each other based on his/her general knowledge of the world or

his/her familiarity with a particular context. Where these intellectual and experiential


34

connections are inadequate, the meanings a speaker can infer are usually incorrect and

may lead to serious misunderstandings (Hyde 1998). Oral as well as written discourse

competence both play a crucial role in language acquisition (Moodley 2010).

In contrast to the above-mentioned views, researchers are now questioning how to

determine who the real native speaker is. In his book, The Native Speaker is Dead!,

Paikedai (1985) indicates that native speakership is a linguistic myth. He argues that the

true meaning of the native speaker is no more, nor less than a proficient user of a

language. Similarly, Kramsch (1995:10) questions the idea that one is a native speaker by

virtue of one's birth or education or membership of a native speaker community. He

suggests a conceptual framework where "the competence of the bilingual non-native

speaker who operates at the border between the two languages is taken as a pedagogic

model". Kramsch (1995:10) further argues that it is now pertinent that the English language

teaching field discards its educational vision and practices based on a "utopian notion of

communicative competence involving idealized native speaker norms in both language and

culture". I agree with this position as it highlights an unrealistic view of communicative

competence, where standardized native speaker norms are the focus. This view does not

reflect the lingua franca status that English has in the Western world. Social and economic

globalization has made the use of an international means of communication throughout the

world, such as English, more and more a necessity. Already in 1985 it was proposed that

the number of people in the world who used English as their native or non-native language

was one and a half billion (Crystal 2003; Alptekin 2002). It was predicted that within a short

period of time the number of people who speak English as a non-native language would

exceed the number of native speakers (Alptekin 2002), and this has already occurred

(Deterding & Kirkpatrick 2006; Crystal 2003). English is estimated to remain the

international medium of communication deep into the twenty-first century. English has

already become the world's main language for storing and transmitting information. In the

nineties an estimated 75% of the world's mail was in English, 80% of computer data was in

English and 85% of all information stored or abstracted was in English (Alptekin 2002;

Yano 2000; Thomas 1996). More recently it was estimated that around 85% of all web

pages are in English (Selví 2007; Graddol 2006; Nunberg 2000).


35

It would seem that the contexts of non-native speakers need to be taken into consideration

if explanations for SLA and communicative competence are to be taken seriously

(Coetzee-Van Rooy (2006). The view that SLA will only be successful if one alienates

oneself from the local identity is contested by Coetzee-Van Rooy (2002) who found in her

study that positive in-group identification correlated with English proficiency. In South

Africa, with its multilingual and multicultural context, English is learnt, among others, to

better understand speakers of other languages across language boundaries (Coetzee-Van

Rooy 2006). English, therefore, operates as a lingua franca among non-native speakers of

English and the successful mastering of English is not enough reason to be accepted as

part of the English speaking South African community (a very small group) (Coetzee-Van

Rooy 2006).

It seems possible then that in the South African context a strong case can be made for the

rights of non-native speakers of English (the so-called "expanding" or "outer circle" [Kachru

1992:356]) to also "develop their own norms rather than continuing to defer to those of the

so-called educated native speaker" (Jenkins 2006:171). Studies that support this view are

those that demonstrate how teachers and learners accommodate other varieties of English

into their multilingual classrooms (Heller & Martin-Jones 2001; Heller 1999), similar to the

South African context. Because English is used as a lingua franca, it is apparent that most

communication in English involves interactions between non-native speaker and non-native

speaker. The relevance of focusing on, for example, the conventions of British politeness,

the importance of Anglo-American eye contact, or the socially acceptable distance for

conversation as properties of meaningful communication, has thus become less important

(Alptekin 2002; Kramsch 1995) (cf. section 2.4).

A shift to the pluricentric realities of English, as proposed by Kachru (1988;1885) and

Kachru et al (2009), where communicative competence is equal to the purposes and

situations found in theses contexts, need to be considered. The notion of acceptability or

appropriateness (communicative competence) cannot be applied without taking the context

of the situation into consideration, especially in a multilingual situation such as South

Africa. When an American and a South African interact, variations in phonology, semantics

or pragmatics may interfere with the communicative success. Usually these interferences


36

are accounted for as cultural differences which underlie the linguistic choices made by

each speaker. Kachru et al (2009) assert that these variations are acceptable for both

speakers because they are both native speakers of their particular varieties. The

dependence of context and communicative competence on one another is particularly clear

in incidences of cross-cultural communication. Speech act realization, such as with

apologies or requests, does not always represent the intended message when speakers

share different socio-cultural norms (Kachru et al 2009). In the following example, taken

from Kachru et al (2009:39), an African-English speaker will greet someone by saying "I

see you've put on some weight", which is considered a polite way of greeting in the African

culture. The American-English speaker will meet this greeting with indignation because

only the cultural equivalent of this greeting, "You're looking well", will be considered

appropriate. As a result the utterance will be misunderstood. In exchanges such as these, I

am interested in the aspect of communicative competence which caused the

misunderstanding, namely whether it is linguistic (register, lexical items, rate of speech) or

cultural (pragmatic choices the speaker made based on values). In the aforementioned

example it is cultural; underlying the observable factors of linguistic form and polite social

behaviour are the interlocutors' value systems. Therefore, I follow Kachru's (1981)

definition of communicative competence where Hymes's (1972b) notion of sociolinguistic

rules is added to context and situation (social and cultural constraints applicable to the

setting of the speech event). This then forms the basis of Kachru's (1981) formulation of

communicative competence, namely "interpersonal function of language and a socially

constructed meaning potential" (Kachru et al 2009). Kachru's (1981) view of

communicative competence is particularly relevant when one needs to determine whether

or not a particular use of English is appropriate, or whether native speaker norms and

native speaker communicative competence are the only acceptable ways of speaking.

Kachru supports the view that it is the local users who are best able to determine what is

appropriate in their own contexts of use (Kachru et al 2009).

Communicative competence is also at the centre of language teaching and pedagogy. Until

recently, all learners of English had as their goal to acquire native speaker competence

and a British (or American) variety was thought to be the model to follow (Jenkins 2009).

More recently, the teaching goal has become effectiveness in all aspects of


37

communication rather than approaches preoccupied with grammatical correctness (Kachru

et al 2009). As such, in choosing a classroom model, the diversity of the social and cultural

context in which the language will be used, can only be seen as critical.

Nevertheless, in an instructional setting where the teacher supposedly acts as a model of

effective communication, at least some level of accuracy and fluency is required for

communicative competence to be achieved. Yano (2000) claims that in many countries

where English is acquired as a second language, a constant complaint is that the standard

of English is falling. Furthermore, despite the growing sense of the strengths of the non-

native speaker, the belief in native speaker ownership and superiority persists among both

native and non-native speakers (Jenkins 2006).

When non-native speakers of English are considered communicatively competent, they

usually employ a variety of communicative acts, called speech acts, to achieve their

communicative goals. These speech acts include Searle's (1969) seminal broad categories

of classification; commisives, declarations, directives, expressives and representatives, as

well as more specific speech acts such as requests, apologies, complaints and refusals

(Kasper & Rose 2001; Searle 1969; Austen 1962). While the theory on communicative

competence covers several dimensions of language behaviour, the focus in this study is on

one aspect of communicative competence, namely speech acts, which was used as

analytical framework to describe misunderstandings. The section that follows explains the

nature of speech acts and their role in communicative competence.

2.4 Speech Act Theory and speech acts

Being able to recognise the specific speech act which is performed with an utterance is a

central aspect of pragmatic competence and as such speech act behaviour has been a

fundamental concern for researchers in this field. Studies on pragmatics have been

specifically focused on the pragmatic difficulties which differentiate second language (L2)

learners' behaviour from that of native language speakers' behaviour. Inadequate mastery

of grammar, together with socio-linguistic misperception, makes learners appear improper


38

or even incompetent. Failing to utter speech acts appropriately results in the breakdown of

communication.

Two of the most important contributors to the creation of the classic Speech Act Theory are

Austin (1962) and Searle (1969). Austin (1962) claims that when speakers utter a

sentence, they actually produce three actions or acts, namely a locutionary, an illocutionary

and a perlocutionary act. A locutionary act is "the specific utterance with its determinate

sense and reference" (Bosco, Bucciarelli & Bara 2006:1400). It is the act of saying

something; it is when one utters a sentence with a certain reference, equivalent to its

traditional meaning, for example, "The books are on the top shelf."

The illocutionary act is the speaker's "intent in uttering the message" (Bosco et al

2006:1400). It is the act done in saying something – it is when we utter, for example,

orders or warnings. These utterances have a certain conventional force or intent, for

example, "Don't paste the worksheet over the drawing!"

Lastly, the perlocutionary act is the "effects the addressor sets out to achieve" (Bosco et al

2006:1400). It is the act done by saying something – it is when we bring about a certain

reaction by, for example, convincing, persuading, deterring or even misleading or

surprising someone (Austin 1962). For example, "If you are as intelligent as I think you are,

you would certainly find the answers."

The locutionary aspect seems to correspond to the conventional content and the

illocutionary aspect is identical to the conventional force of an utterance (Marcu 2000). The

perlocutionary act produces certain consequential effects upon the thoughts, feelings or

actions of other persons.

Searle (1969) presents a theory, which is a development of the account presented by

Austin (1962) and claims that four acts are characteristically performed when uttering a

sentence. These are performing

1) utterance acts such as uttering words (morphemes, sentences)

2) propositional acts such as referring and predicting


39

3) illocutionary acts such as stating, questioning, commanding, promising, apologising

4) Austin's notion of the perlocutionary act, where the illocutionary act has a

consequence or effect on the actions, thoughts or beliefs of hearers

Together, Austin and Searle provide a useful conceptual framework for describing

communicative action (Kaburise 2005). Austin's insight is that an utterance constitutes an

act. When making an utterance one not only says things, one can also do things. An act

performed through speech is thus a speech act. The three speech acts are ruled by

different sets of felicity conditions (cf. section 1.4) which determine the success or failure of

each act (Bosco et al 2006). These conditions include considerations of what is said, the

form, meaning and presentation of what is said, as well as the context in which it is said

(Kasper, 2005). Felicity conditions, invented by Austin (1962) in his formulation of Speech

Act Theory, refer to certain conditions which must be in place and certain criteria which

must be satisfied for a speech act to achieve its purpose (Crystal 2003:178). Utterances

are not seen in terms of being true or false, but are deemed "felicitous" or "infelicitous"

based on a set of conditions. The interpretation of these sets of conditions will differ

depending on the type of speech act; whether the utterance is a declaration ("I give you my

word"), a request ("Please open your books") or a warning ("Do not shout out the

answers"). The different sets of felicity conditions include: (1) an essential condition

(whether a speaker intends that an utterance be acted upon; (2) a sincerity condition

(whether the speech act is being performed seriously and sincerely); (3) a preparatory

condition (whether the authority of the speaker and the circumstances of the speech act

are appropriate to its being performed successfully) (Crystal 2003:179). Felicity conditions

are, therefore, conventions that speakers and hearers use as a framework to allow them to

produce and recognize actions: "Speakers use the felicity conditions for actions as a

device for encoding their actions into sentences with a particular linguistic structure that

speakers then utter (i.e. they produce the appropriate utterance unit). Hearers, in turn, use

the same set of felicity conditions for actions as a device for decoding the speaker's actions

from the linguistic structure of the sentences the speaker produced (i.e. from the speaker's

utterance units)" (Turnbull 2003:47). Felicity conditions are thus conditions for speech acts

to be effective.


40

When one or more of the felicity conditions ruling each stage are not satisfied, a speech act

will fail. Being able to recognise the actions that speakers perform with their utterances is a

crucial aspect of successful language use. When some or all of these conditions are not in

place, the force of an utterance may be misunderstood and incidents of communication

failure may occur. This may be enough to differentiate a non-native speaker from a native

speaker and may cause breakdown in communication.

It would seem that native speakers are able to adhere to the felicity conditions with relative

ease, even automatically. This may not be the case for non-native speakers, which may be

the reason for misunderstandings. Misunderstandings are considered an integral part of

the comprehension process and not merely a simple breakdown (Bosco et al 2006; Blum-

Kulka & Weizman 1988; Dascal 1985). The mismatch between the speaker's meaning and

the hearer's interpretation is the central defining feature of misunderstanding and

communication failure (Bosco et al 2006).

The focus in researching speech acts is mainly on the illocutionary force of utterances, or

their functional value (Kaburise 2005; Schmidt & Richards 1980). It remains puzzling that

speakers and hearers are usually able to understand one another, not only in terms of the

form and meaning of utterances, but also in terms of the functions of the utterances. If, for

example, hearers respond only to the form and meaning of the utterance "Can you provide

a definition of adverbs?" by simply replying "Yes, I can", they have not taken the

illocutionary force of the utterance, namely request, into consideration and are being

wilfully (or even unwittingly) uncommunicative. This leads to what Thomas (1983:90) calls

"pragmatic failure", or cross-cultural communication breakdown, since it seems to be the

transfer from L1 cultural norms to the L2 that causes the misunderstanding or breakdown

in communication. Speakers and hearers usually are able to interpret these functions

because they understand the linguistic meaning of the utterances, but also because they

know under what contextual conditions or appropriateness conditions (Bachman 1990) an

utterance can serve as a particular type of illocutionary act. Thomas (1983:97) applied the

terms "pragmalinguistic failure", or "linguistically inappropriate transfer", and

"sociopragmatic failure", or "cross-culturally different interpretations of appropriateness", to

clarify this notion further. Thomas (1983) points out that pragmalinguistic competence


41

refers to the competence to use appropriate language to perform an illocutionary act. When

one fails to do so, pragmalinguistic failure will result. Sociopragmatic failure occurs when

non-native speakers fail to choose the appropriate utterance because of a lack of

knowledge of cultural differences. What may be considered polite speech in one culture,

may be considered inappropriate in another. Eisenstein and Bodman (1986) state that

pragmalinguistic failure includes errors made because non-native speakers, while knowing

what the right thing to say is, do not know how to say the right thing. Sociopragmatic

failure, on the other hand, includes errors made because non-native speakers do not know

what to say or what the appropriate thing to say is because of transferring contrasting rules

from their native languages and cultures. An utterance can only be correctly interpreted,

i.e. have the illocutionary force as intended by the speaker, if the conditions surrounding

the utterance are appropriate.

Where utterances are in disagreement with the appropriateness conditions, often when

interpreted literally, hearers usually do not simply reject the utterances as illocutionary

failures. They will accept that the speaker is conforming to the general principles of co-

operative behaviour (Grice 1975) and will determine whether the utterances have an

indirect instead of a direct illocutionary force (Schmidt & Richards 1980). They will then be

able to interpret indirect speech acts in the way the speaker intended them to be

interpreted. It is important to note that being able to interpret utterances correctly is solely

dependent on the speaker's communicative ability or communicative competence, because

meaning is flexible, dynamic, and depends on negotiation between speakers (Kasper

2005). This is even more pronounced when idiosyncratic utterances, such as those made

by L2 speakers, and the participants of this study, are scrutinized.

It would seem as if native speakers of a language have the instinctive ability to determine

the complexities of the inferential processes involved in understanding implied meanings in

natural conversations because they are conforming to the politeness principles4 and the

Gricean (1981) maxims, which are fundamental to human communication (Holtgraves

2007; Kasper 2005; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1986). It is strongly believed that pragmatic

failure possibly occurs because these principles and maxims are bound by intercultural

4 Read Brown and Levinson (1978) for information on Politeness Theory


42

differences (Wierzbicka 1992; Blum-Kulka 1990). L2 learners may achieve easy control of

the vocabulary and grammar of the target language without achieving the equivalent

control over the pragmatic or functional uses of the language, such as those communicated

by speech acts. In other words, they may learn various forms for offering their thanks or for

apologizing, for example, but may not always know when it is appropriate to use these

forms (Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1986). The L2 learner, therefore, has very specific difficulties

in successfully realising speech acts in the LoLT. An L2 learner's lack of awareness of

pragmatic aspects of the target language and the subsequent inappropriate transfer of

speech act strategies from L1 to L2 may lead to misunderstandings and pragmatic failure.

This could impact gravely on the learning experience in the classroom, especially if the

teacher is also an L2 speaker of English. In the South African context, with many non-

native speakers of English (Statistics South Africa 2001), the possibility for such

differences becomes particularly strong.

In contrast to the traditional viewpoints on SLA and communicative competence presented

in the aforementioned, there is a growing view among researchers that these views are

flawed (Coetzee-Van Rooy 2006; Liddicoat 2000; Sridhar & Sridhar 1992; Kachru 1988;

Smith 1983). It has been assumed that success in acquiring a second language is

motivated by an admiration for the native speakers of the target language and a desire to

become a member of their culture (Sridhar & Sridhar 1992). Native-like second language

proficiency would then be possible. Coetzee-Van Rooy (2006:440) argues that such a view

"is not tenable in a context such as the South African one, where English is not learned for

the purpose of integration with a dominant English speaking group". As Smith (1983:2)

states, "No one needs to become more like Americans, the British, the Australians … or

any other English speaker to lay claim on the language". Smith (1983:5) reminds teachers

that the goal for teaching English is to "communicate their ideas" and not to learn about

English culture. I agree with Liddicoat (2000) who claims that striving for intercultural

competence (linguistically and culturally) does not necessarily mean "assimilation into the

target culture, but rather developing a third place between the learner's native culture and

the target culture, i.e. between self and other" (Liddicoat, Crozet & Lo Bianco 1999:181).

Language learners need to understand what native speakers mean when they use the

language, even if they do not wish to reproduce native speaker behaviour (Liddicoat 2000).


43

Realising speech acts effectively is a fundamental part of communicative competence and

implies being consciously aware of linguistic forms, functional meanings, speech styles and

relevant contexts (Schmidt 1992; 1993). Trosborg (1995) and Kasper (2001) advocate

enhancing learners' awareness of appropriate pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic

behaviour by explicitly teaching pragmatic features. This could be done by means of

description, explanation and discussion. Kasper (2001:522) further observes that teachers

of English must be "sufficiently socialised to second language pragmatic practices so that

they can comfortably draw on those practices as part of their communicative and cultural

repertoire". Their "metapragmatic awareness" will then place them in a position to support

the learning of second language pragmatics effectively (Pohl 2004:12). This is, however, a

challenging requirement because most of our pragmatic knowledge is embedded and is

only realised through careful observation and the conscious practising of being able to

distinguish between expressed and implied meanings (Pohl 2004).

Although much research has been conducted which addresses awareness of classroom

discourse, it does not seem appropriate to conclude that all is well in classrooms where

culturally and linguistically diverse learners attempt to master English as their second

language (Ramirez & Merino 1990). Research on the quality of teacher and learner

language (Ramirez, Yuen, Ramey & Pasta 1991; Ramirez & Merino 1990) suggests that

the teacher provides a passive language environment, where learners' opportunities to

produce language and develop more complex language and thinking skills are limited.

Teachers do most of the talking, sometimes making twice as many utterances as learners,

and often the only responses from learners are non-verbal gestures (Ramirez & Merino

1990). These non-verbal gestures often convey their misunderstanding and confusion, and

if not acted upon, will negatively influence the learning experience (Ramirez & Marino

1990). Classroom interaction should provide learners with the opportunity to create original

statements, rather than simple, distinct or closed ended responses. This will allow learners

to participate in more complex learning, i.e. higher order thinking skills (Ramirez et al

1991). To do so requires a special kind of teacher and a special kind of curriculum.

Although it is difficult to identify specific attributes of teachers necessary for successful

language teaching, research efforts have focused on identifying teacher characteristics for

successful teaching (Reynolds & Elias 1991). There are four areas in which good teachers


44

excel, namely content knowledge, teaching for learning, creating a classroom community,

and teacher professionalism (Dwyer 1991). Excelling in these areas provides learners with

prime chances of success. However, in this study I argue that misunderstandings may

occur when the teacher lacks the proficiency in one (or all) of these domains, and does not

possess adequate oral proficiency. Much of the research done in this field has focused on

written evidence such as discourse completion tests (DCTs), or artificial scenarios to

capture speech act realization (De Kadt 1992; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1984; Scarcella

1979). A few examples, presented from earlier to the most recent studies on speech act

realization, are presented in table 2.2.

Table 2.2: Some studies on Speech Act research

Researcher Date Type of speech act study

Scarcella 1979 Roleplay

Robinson 1982 Discourse completion test (DCT), verbal protocol

Ohlstain & Blum-Kulka 1985 Rating scale

Blum-Kulka & Ohlstain 1986 Discourse completion test (DCT)

Koike 1996 Video-prompted response rating scale

Hill 1997 Discourse completion test (DCT)

Kaburise 2005 Discourse completion test (DCT)

Lwanga Luma 2005 Discourse completion test (DCT)

The above research was conducted on written utterances, mostly in contrived settings,

which suggests that there is a gap in the literature on oral proficiency and language use in

natural settings or settings such as a classroom. In attempting to fill this gap, I focused on

misunderstandings and oral proficiency in an instructional context. I concur with Marcu

(2000) who states that if we require pragmatics to be meaningful in our understanding of

the world, we need to avoid artificially constructed examples and base our research on

real-life or actual data.

Based on the aforementioned sections (cf. sections 2.2, 2.3 & 2.4), it would seem important

for language speakers to develop knowledge of pragmatic and socio-linguistic rules in

order to avoid failure and misunderstanding in instructional communication. Pragmatic


45

competence is defined as "the ability to use language effectively in order to understand

language in context" (El Samaty 2005:341).

I argue that misunderstanding may be as a result of inadequate pragmatic competence and

poor oral proficiency. Since this study focuses on misunderstandings in an instructional

context, it stands to reason that both the context, namely the classroom, and the

communication between the student teacher and learners in this setting should be

scrutinised.

2.5 Instructional communication

Communication is "the exchange of ideas, including hearing or receiving information,

speaking or sending information, and use of language, written, oral and symbolic"

(Collins & O'Brien 2003:65). Communication is interactive and participatory, ideas are

exchanged in a two-way process with feedback, it involves basic language skills such as

hearing, listening and speaking, and the participants include one who sends information

(sender) and one who receives information (receiver) (Collins & O'Brien 2003). Sage

(2003:1) states that communication is dynamic in that "it includes many ways of sending

and receiving messages, and not simply telling things to others". Figure 2.3 offers a

diagram of the communication elements in traditional mono-directional instruction.

Figure 2.3: Communication elements in traditional instruction

(Adapted from Neo & Neo 2004)

The above diagram indicates only the basic elements involved in the communication

process and is, therefore, not satisfactory. There are more aspects involved. Since the

communication is a two-way process, it includes processing of information and dealing with

Sender (student teacher)

Receiver (learner) Message


46

barriers to successful communication in order to give relevant feedback. The diagram in

figure 2.4 is a more accurate schematic representation of the communication process.

Figure 2.4: The communication process

Message

Feedback Feedback

(Adapted from Steinberg 1995)

The elements of communication indicated above refer to the ideal setting in an ideal class.

A number of factors come into play during the instructional communication process, namely

psychological, sensory and external factors, which could all result in instructional

dissonance, or what Evans and Cleghorn (2010:141) call "complex language encounters".

In a traditional setting, instruction refers to "the guided exercises, lessons, and materials

used to teach a subject, the formal act of imparting knowledge or developing skills,

teaching" (Collins & O'Brien 2003:181). This definition qualifies instruction as a formal

activity where exercises, clarifications and learning materials are used for the purpose of

sharing knowledge, developing skills and shaping attitudes/values. In the South African

context formal instruction is teaching/learning that takes place within an accredited

institution of learning and is geared towards rewarding a learner with a recognised

qualification at the end of the programme (school certificate or higher education

certificate/diploma/degree) when that learner has successfully mastered the set outcomes.

Several studies have been conducted on instructional communication (Ismail & Idris 2009;

Katt, McCroskey, Sivo, Richmond & Valencic 2009; Osakwe 2009; Rhymes 2009; Daly &

Brown 2007; McCroskey, Valencic & Richmond 2004; Alptekin 2002; Simonds 2001), all

focusing on how language is used in an instructional context. Most of these studies employ

Sender/Receiver (student teacher)

Receiver/Sender (learner)


47

discourse analysis as methodology to determine what is said and how it is said during

instruction. However, the focus tends to be on how language is used and not on how

communication fails. My study examines misunderstandings, possibly caused by

communication failure, in an instructional setting. Instructional communication is defined by

Simonds (2001:1) as "a field of study that informs educators of all disciplines about the

communication skills necessary to function competently in the classroom". Teachers need

these skills to facilitate the content of what they plan to teach and learners need these skills

to engage with the content. For the purposes of this study, the notion of instructional

communication is based on The General Model of Instructional Communication developed

by McCroskey et al (2004) and in this study refers to student teachers' communicative

skills, which include oral proficiency, as they interact with their learners, verbally and non-

verbally, in a face-to-face learning environment. Experiential knowledge has led me to

believe that oral proficiency and communication skills are inadequately developed among

student teachers who are non-native speakers of English, and since English is the LoLT in

many schools in South Africa, these student teachers, once appointed, will be expected to

facilitate content in English without the necessary communication skills or adequate oral

proficiency.

Language classrooms can be viewed as socio-linguistic environments and discourse

communities where learners' language development is supported by interaction

(Consolo 2006a). Language learning is a social entity and is intrinsically linked to the

participation of learners in activities presented in the classroom. It is during the interactions

of the teacher and the learner where intellectual and practical activities shape the form as

well as the content of the target language (Consolo 2006a). The teacher's management of

instructional communication defines the learners' utterances, for example, when they reply

to the teacher's questions. When the teacher's management of instructional communication

is problematic, learners have to take the initiative to overcome communication breakdowns,

as in requests for clarification of what has been said (Katt et al 2009; McCroskey et al

2004; Simonds 2001). This view is supported by several researchers, who refer to

communication competence (Schirmer, Mauksch, Lang, Marvel, Zoppi, Epstein, Brock, &

Pryzbylski 2005; Lane & Shelton 2001), classroom communication (Ismail & Idris 2009),

classroom interaction (Osakwe 2009), verbal and non-verbal behaviour in the classroom


48

(Babad 2009) and classroom discourse analysis (Rymes 2009; Nuthall 2005) to explain

what happens in an instructional environment. The aforementioned researchers agree that

communication is of utmost importance during teaching and learning, because teachers

and learners negotiate meaning in a classroom context. As such, the oral proficiency of

instructors plays an important role.

Communication is intuitive, and the speaker's feelings, attitudes, general knowledge and

social understanding are all part of the communication process (Sage 2003). These are

communicated by non-verbal cues, such as facial expression, gestures and posture, also

known as haptics. Teaching and learning are, therefore, communicative incidents where

verbal and non-verbal information is constantly exchanged between teachers and learners.

It follows that communication between teachers and learners should be clear and effective

and should follow conventions of conduct so that information is fed back and behaviour

adjusted where necessary in order to facilitate understanding and avoid misunderstanding.

My assumption was that where misunderstandings occurred, it might be because the

student teachers who participated in this study are non-native speakers of English.

Since this study is based on the premise that misunderstandings may occur because of

student teachers' inappropriate or even erroneous speech act performance, a closer look

at what happens during pragmatic failure is required. As a further premise of the study is

that misunderstandings may be caused by pragmatic failure, it stands to reason that the

nature of misunderstandings also needs to be investigated.

2.6 Misunderstanding

The notion of misunderstanding has been described under a variety of terms in socio-

linguistics: as miscommunication, misinterpretation, misperception and pragmatic failure or

breakdown in communication (Verdonik 2010; Bosco et al 2006; Weigand 1999; Weizman

1999; Dascal & Berenstein 1987; Thomas 1983; Zaefferer 1977). Research interest in

misunderstandings has been abundant over the last few decades (Bosco et al 2006;

Hinnenkamp 1999, 2003; Bazzanello & Damiano 1999a; 1999b; Weizman 1999; Weigand

1999; Weizman & Blum-Kulka 1992; Dascal & Berenstein 1987; Schegloff 1987; Thomas


49

1983; Zaefferer 1977). However, research on this topic appears to have diminished in

recent years as I found very few studies on misunderstanding published after 2003.

Verdonik (2010:1364) describes what she calls "borderline misunderstandings", i.e.

whether or not a misunderstanding has occurred, whether or not communication was

successful and why interlocutors do not negotiate understanding. Although her study does

not aim to classify misunderstandings, many other researchers (Hinnenkamp 2003; 1999;

Wong 2000; Bazzanella & Damiano 1999a; 1999b; Weigand 1999; Weizman 1999;

Schegloff 1992) have proposed various classifications of misunderstandings.

Misunderstandings in the literature have been classified according to structural rather than

content factors, such as where in the turn-taking the misunderstanding occurs (Wong 2000;

Schegloff 1992). Mainly two approaches have received research interest:

1) attempts to trace the sources of, and the reasons for misunderstandings

2) attempts to identify the interactional structure of misunderstandings (Hinnenkamp

1999)

The aforementioned studies focus on the role that ambiguity and indirectness (or the

difference between speech and intended meaning) play in the speech event. However,

there seems to be a dearth of publications related to the frequency and consequences of

misunderstandings that cause miscommunication in the instructional setting. My study

attempts to address this gap in the literature. The lens of this study is misunderstanding as

the interface between theories on communication and Vygotsky's theory of ZPD.

Research on misunderstandings has mainly focused on how often misunderstandings

occur (Fraser 1993; Schegloff 1992), how misunderstandings are detected and corrected

(Bazzanella & Damiano 1999a; 1999b; Weizman 1999), how misunderstandings are

managed (Bosco et al 2006; Bazzanella & Damiano 1999a; 1999b; Hinnenkamp 1999;

Weigand 1999), what the causes of misunderstandings are (Bazzanella & Damiano 1999a;

1999b; Hinnenkamp 1999; Weigand 1999; Weizman 1999; Linell 1995; Bilmes 1992;

Tannen 1991; Schegloff 1987), and cross-cultural misunderstandings (Tannen 1992; 1991;

Chick 1989; Blum-Kulka & Olshtain 1986; Thomas 1983; Gumperz & Cook-Gumperz

1982). Causes of misunderstanding are closely related to the types of misunderstanding. A

useful classification of causes of misunderstandings, which they call "triggers", is provided

by Bazzanella and Damiano (1999b:818). These triggers fall into four categories, namely


50

structural misunderstandings (such as ambiguity – often the main cause of

misunderstandings); misunderstandings related to the speaker; misunderstandings related

to the interlocutor and misunderstandings related to the interaction between the two

speakers (such as cultural differences, e.g. between male and female communicative

styles [Tannen 1991]). Some of the main classifications of misunderstandings in the

literature are presented in chronological order in table 2.3.

Table 2.3: Classifications of misunderstandings

Researcher Date Classification

Zaefferer 1977 Structural taxonomy (misperceptions or misinterpretations)

Thomas 1983 Pragmatics-based classification of communication failure

(pragmalinguistic and sociopragmatic failure)

Dascal & Berenstein 1987 Two modes of understanding: comprehending and grasping

(speaker meaning and rules for social interaction)

Weizman & Blum-Kulka 1992 Individual (I-level) and collective (we-level) misunderstanding,

each further classified in three dimensions

Bazzanella & Damiano

1999 Five levels of misunderstanding:

phonetic, syntactic, lexical, semantic, pragmatic

Hinnenkamp

1999 Seven types of misunderstanding, grouped into event and

core

Bosco, Bucciarelli & Bara 2006 Taxonomy: failure of the expression act, failure of the actor's

meaning and failure of the communicative effect

The following examples seem to fit the classifications of Thomas (1983) on pragmatic

failure (example 1), and Zaefferer (1977) on misinterpretations (examples 2 and 3) and are

included to highlight the typical sources of misunderstanding in instructional settings.

Example 1:

During assembly5 one morning at a dual medium6 secondary school, the national flag is

hoisted, but the learners are not particularly interested in the process. The staff member

responsible for assembly is upset at the lack of respect and shouts at the learners to look

5 Assembly is a formal gathering at school where all learners and staff gather to hear information relevant to

all for the week. Typically, the South African flag is hoisted at this gathering and often learners and staff participate in religious ceremonies. 6 Afrikaans/English; English as medium of instruction (LoLT).


51

at the flag while it is being hoisted. English is not his home language and due to cross-

cultural and/or linguistic transfer failure, he uses a typical Afrikaans preposition in the

sentence. He shouts:

"Look for the flag!"

(translated directly into Afrikaans: "Kyk vir (sic) die vlag")

resulting in all the learners searching on the ground for the missing flag!

Example 2:

A teacher hands out essays that she has marked. On some of the essays she has written:

"Keep it up!". When she looks up, she sees the learners holding the essays up in the air.

The learners misunderstood her sentence, interpreting it as a directive to hold the essays

up in the air and not as a congratulatory remark, praising their essay writing skills.

Example 3:

In conversation with friends, I was part of a discussion about an intended overseas trip and

the exchange rate of the Rand/Euro and the amount necessary to have available as cash.

The following exchanges took place as part of this discussion:

"I still have to bring you the Heroes [DVD recordings of a popular TV series]"

"Are you sure? Won't you need them [Euros] yourself when you go [overseas]

again?"

"Why would I want to take them overseas with me?"

"One can always use extra Euros."

"No. I'm talking about Heroes, the TV series!"

The examples above are definitely misunderstandings. But the question is whether the

misunderstandings constitute a problem or not. In social situations like the above, probably

not, but in an instructional setting they certainly do. As stated in chapter 1, researchers

agree, and I concur, that the most important use of language is for communication between

people (Dascal 1999; Weigand 1999; Weizman 1999). This communication can, however,

go wrong in a number of ways, as described in the conversation above, and may lead to

misunderstanding. Weigand (1999:769) quotes the German author, Johann Wolfgang

Goethe as saying: "Nobody would speak a lot in company if they knew how often they


52

misunderstood the other." Weigand (1999:773) warns that "if we do not respond

appropriately to the information given to us we may be misinterpreting the message,

causing bad feelings towards one another and creating other problems".

Misunderstandings are assumed to occur daily which is evidenced by the frequent use and

availability of specific repair structures in conversational turns (Dascal 1999). Dascal

(1999) claims that speakers become aware of misunderstandings almost immediately after

they had occurred (second turn) and most misunderstandings are repaired in the third or

fourth turn. There are, however, exceptions, where misunderstanding continues for several

turns. If unresolved, these misunderstandings are sustained and may lead to breakdown in

communication, which is equal to miscommunication or pragmatic failure. Some authors

have stressed that misunderstandings are a fundamental part of the comprehension

process and not merely a breakdown (Kreuz & Roberts 1993; Blum-Kulka & Weizman

1988; Dascal 1985). However, it seems as if all authors agree that an inconsistency

between speaker meaning and hearer interpretation is the chief determining aspect of

misunderstanding.

It is not possible to describe misunderstanding without clearly defining the concept of

understanding. Weigand (1999) claims that understanding is a psychological process

associated with an abstract object (e.g. a message) or a physical object (e.g. a person),

where one is able to think or talk about that object appropriately. She explains that to

understand something is to have conceptualized it to a certain extent and provides the

following example: one could say that "somebody who reacts appropriately to X

understands X", or in other terms, "one understands Spanish if one correctly obeys

commands given in that language" (Weigand 1999:776). To understand a request, one

would have to understand who made the request, what is expected by the person making

the request, whether the request is legitimate and whether one understands the speaker. In

other words, one understands a message if one can meaningfully reproduce the

information conveyed by the message, correctly and appropriately. In addition,

understanding is only possible when one has interpreted correctly the context in which the

speech event took place, where understanding or misunderstanding can occur due to the

context rather than words or language, and taken body language into account. Weigand


53

(1999:769) states that the purpose of all our communicative actions is to "come to an

understanding" of one another, and that this is determined by our sensible and

conventional use of communicative means. Even when we use indirect ways to express

ourselves, we use conventional techniques. These communicative actions, which serve the

purpose of "coming to an understanding", are in contrast to the notion of "understanding",

which is an intellectual notion, because we rely on certain assumptions and knowledge and

use intellectual abilities in drawing inferences in meaning (Weigand 1999:769; 773). It

would thus seem that knowledge of speech acts plays a distinct role in avoiding

misunderstanding, as speaker intent needs to be determined. This does not mean that

complete understanding is always taken for granted. I agree with Verdonik (2010:1377)

who states that "there is no such thing as perfect, complete understanding since discourse

participants always understand discourse from their own points of view". Because people

from different worlds meet and because speakers and hearers are different people and

because each communicative episode is different, our level of communicative competence

explains some incidences where misunderstanding may occur. This is particularly true of

the instructional context where a diverse mix of learners and teachers meet daily.

It is, perhaps, prudent to also clarify the notion of misunderstandings. Weigand (1999:769)

argues that the most prominent feature of misunderstanding is that it is a "form of

understanding which is partially or totally deviant from what the speaker intended to

communicate, it is a communicative phenomenon typically belonging to the receiver, who is

not aware of the fact that s/he has misunderstood, it is involuntary and it occurs at the

semantic-pragmatic level". It can, therefore, not be described as an act but as an ability (or

rather inability) of the hearer. Weigand's (1999) statement points to the receiver/hearer

having misunderstood, knowingly or unknowingly, but in my opinion it is often the error (of

whatever kind) made by the speaker that leads to the receiver misunderstanding the

speaker's intent. The misunderstanding, therefore, cannot only belong to the receiver, but

should belong to the speaker as well, although most commonly, misunderstanding occurs

without having been intended by the speaker. An example from my observational data

supports this thought where a student teacher said to the learners:

"You've read the book, people!", an indirect speech act meaning "Why don't

you know the answers?" but interpreted by the learners as an interrogative


54

"Have you read the book?" to which they replied "Yes, Sir!"

The receivers/hearers (in this case the learners) misunderstood the intention of the

speaker (the student teacher), but it was the speaker's use of an indirect speech act which

caused the misunderstanding, albeit unintentionally. I believe both speaker and receiver

are thus responsible for the misunderstanding. Misunderstanding can be categorised into

two kinds; the first as a result of errors, or problematic performance (inadequate

proficiency) and the second as a result of the "conventions and principles of

communicative competence" (Weigand 1999:771). Competent interlocutors are able to

deal with general performance conditions and tolerate misunderstanding in a "harmonious

model of communicative competence" because they assume that understanding will be

worked out in conversation and a "coming to an understanding" will be reached (Weigand

1999:769; 771).

Another view on misunderstanding is that which Dascal (1999:753) describes as the "folk-

theory" of misunderstandings, where four factors are taken into account, namely:

1) production vs reception (where the speaker misinforms or mispronounces and the

hearer misinterprets) (cf. example on Euros/Heroes, section 2.6)

2) the level of the linguistic phenomenon where the misunderstanding occurs (this

includes aspects such as acoustics/phonology [mispronouncing]; graphemics

[misprinting]; syntax [misparsing]; lexical semantics [misnaming]; stylistic choices

[wrong word choice]; speech act conditions [misaffirming]; pragmatics

[misanswering or misintending] and rhetoric/argumentation [misconcluding])

3) the norms upon which the evaluation is based (violation of communicative norms

(incorrect – mispronouncing) vs violation of ethical norms (wrong/bad –

misleading/misreporting)

4) involuntary vs voluntary misunderstanding (mispronouncing/mishearing vs

misconveying) (cf. example on Euros/Heroes, section 2.6)

Dascal (1999:754) claims that the categories above assist in characterizing "the standard

case" of misunderstanding which could assist in developing a theory of misunderstanding.

Dascal (1985:443) emphasizes that the utterance is of utmost significance when attempting


55

to avoid misunderstandings and identifies four layers of significance, indicated by four

questions:

1) What did he say?

2) What was he talking about?

3) Why did he say it?

4) Why did he say it in the way he said it?

Hinnenkamp (1999:3) argues that by identifying the significance of the utterance, Dascal

(1985) asserts semantic and pragmatic reasons for misunderstandings. Hinnenkamp

(1999) contests the fact that Dascal's taxonomy (1999) can explain the working and

treatment of misunderstandings. In reaction, Hinnenkamp (1999:3) describes seven types

of misunderstanding (MU), adapted from the work of Linell (1995), which range from "overt

misunderstanding (MU 1 and MU 2) to latent ones (MU 6 and MU 7), with covert

misunderstandings in between (MU 3–MU 5)".

The seven misunderstandings are listed below:

(MU 1) Immediate recognition of a misunderstanding, followed by repair

and a return to the status quo ante, usually with phrases such as "That is not

what I meant", or "I think you misunderstood"

(MU 2) Immediate recognition of a misunderstanding, followed by repair,

but no return to the status quo ante

(MU 3) Gradual recognition of misunderstanding, indicated by disturbances

in the flow of communication ("uncomfortable moments" [Erickson &

Schultz 1982]), with possible but unlikely return to the status quo

ante


in the communication, but is not treated as in MU1 and MU2;

misunderstanding is not treated/rectified or repaired


in the communication, until communication comes to a halt or

breaks down, sometimes followed by change of topic

(MU 6) No obvious recognition of misunderstanding, although an outside

observer will regard it as a misunderstanding


56

(MU 7) To an outside observer there is no indication that a

misunderstanding has occurred, but one interlocutor may have the

feeling that s/he was misunderstood – the misunderstanding,

although noticed, remains unnegotiated

Hinnenkamp (1999:8) further claims that in each of the seven classifications, only two

factors are relevant, namely what he calls the "event" and the "core" of the

misunderstanding. The "event" here is the stretch of talk called the speech event, or the

reason for the conversation. The "core" refers to the part or item that is the actual

misunderstanding, whether it be mishearing, misinterpretation or poor expression. This

argument becomes clear when we revisit the example of the conversation I had with a

friend about Euros/Heroes. The event in this case would be the section of conversation

around the offering of Euros/Heroes and the core would be the ambiguity around the

interpretation of the words "Euro" and "Hero". Thus any misunderstanding in

communication is made up of the "misunderstanding event" as a frame with the core

misunderstanding entrenched. Hinnenkamp (1999) states that the frame only exists by

virtue of the core and that the core is not identifiable or reparable without the frame event

since they all form part of the frame. What all misunderstandings seem to have in common

is the "illusion of understanding up to a certain point, when realisation or embarrassment

occurs and repair work is required", but not necessarily effected (Hinnenkamp 1999:9).

Weigand (1999:776) claims that misunderstandings are evidence that "inferences are

cognitive means to help us understand what is meant. Indirect speech acts are such

examples, where inferences are used to determine the indirectly expressed action

function". Another cause of misunderstanding is our "knowledge habits" and inferential

patterns (Weigand 1999:776). These are intellectual or cognitive and cannot be applied

automatically; they are dependent on the context. When they are applied inappropriately, it

may lead to misunderstanding. Because we cannot always say everything, sometimes for

reasons of economy, we have to rely on what we experience in the communicative

situation and we rely on shared or common knowledge about the habits of speakers

(Weigand 1999). As Thomas (1983:97) puts it, "While grammatical error may reveal a

speaker to be a less than proficient language user, pragmatic failure reflects badly on


57

him/her as a person." Since the world continually changes and habits may be followed in

general, but not in every case, the ability to draw inferences, is crucial to our understanding

(Weigand 1999). Because of the intricacies of the world and of relationships, differences

between speakers will always exist and, therefore, the possibility of misunderstanding is

inherent in the speech event. We, therefore, have to rely on our ability to draw inferences

from what is said. Again, as stated before, while this seems to be a natural, even automatic

function for native speakers of a language, it does not necessarily occur automatically for

non-native speakers. The non-native speaker may not have the linguistic means, or the

intellectual means to correctly identify speaker intent, or there may be outside interference,

such as noise or gestures, or habits and preferences, to name but a few, that influence

understanding. If communication involves guess work for the native speaker, how much

more so for the non-native speaker, and how much greater the probability of

misunderstanding?

2.7 Conclusion

Misunderstandings occur daily and could be a complicated issue in the instructional setting.

It would seem as if many teachers in the South African context have a particularly difficult

task, especially if they are non-native speakers of English themselves. The challenge is to

develop communicative competence which would require knowledge of linguistic as well as

social norms. A fundamental feature of communicative competence is recognizing the

specific speech act that a speaker performs with an utterance. Communicative competence

must include pragmalinguistic competence, i.e. choosing appropriate form, and

sociopragmatic competence, which is choosing appropriate meaning, if intercultural

communication breakdowns are to be avoided. Where these competences are not

achieved, pragmatic failure may be the result, causing misunderstandings.

Chapter 2 provided an overview of the literature on second language acquisition,

communicative competence and speech acts, which play a crucial role in non-native

speakers' ability to impart meaning and communicate successfully. A brief overview of

instructional communication, particularly in the South African context where English is the


58

LoLT, was given, as well as a description of misunderstandings as they relate to

communicative competence.

In studying the literature on second language acquisition, communicative competence and

speech acts, I found the theories problematic in their relevance and applicability to the

current notions of the "non-native" speaker, specifically in the South African context. In the

multilingual context of South African schools, where English is widely used as a lingua

franca, the non-native speaker may bring strengths and knowledge to the communication

process that may add to our understanding of misunderstandings in an instructional setting.

To gain a deeper understanding of the occurrence, type, frequency and causes of

misunderstanding, I framed my investigation against Vygotsky's theory of the ZPD in

second language acquisition (cf. section 2.2), using SAT (cf. section 2.4) as an analytical

tool in scrutinizing misunderstandings. The next chapter deals with the research design

and methodology which guided the study in order to provide answers to the research

questions.

chapter 1 overview of the study - repository.up.ac.za

Documents